5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Smederevo.
6.  In 1998 the applicant married P.V. and later that year their daughter A.V. was born.
7.  Initially, the applicant lived with P.V.'s parents in Krupanj while P.V. remained in Belgrade in order to finish his studies.
8.  In 2001 the applicant and P.V. started having marital problems, apparently as a result of this separation.
9.  On 24 February 2001 the applicant and A.V. moved to her parents' house in Smederevo, where they stayed for a period of four months and wherefrom the applicant filed a claim with the Municipal Court in Krupanj (Opštinski sud u Krupnju), seeking the dissolution of her marriage, custody of A.V. and child maintenance.
10.  On 19 July 2001 the Municipal Court in Krupanj (“the Municipal Court”) issued a partial judgment, dissolving the marriage. The proceedings, thereafter, continued in respect of the child custody/maintenance sought by the applicant.
11.  On 10 April 2002 the Mental Health Institute (Institut za mentalno zdravlje) recommended that custody be granted to the applicant and held that P.V. was “incapable of adequately taking into account” the needs of A.V., including and especially her need for communication with the applicant.
12.  On 25 February 2004 the Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant. In so doing, inter alia, it granted her custody of A.V. and ordered P.V. to pay 10% of his monthly salary as child maintenance.
13.  On 17 December 2004 the District Court in Šabac (Okružni sud u Šapcu) upheld the ruling of the Municipal Court. P.V. was apparently served with this judgment some two months later, which is when the Municipal Court's judgment became enforceable.
14.  On 9 March 2006 the Supreme Court of Serbia (Vrhovni sud Srbije) confirmed the decision of the District Court in Šabac (“the District Court”), at third instance.
15.  Given that, as of 29 June 2001, A.V. was staying with P.V. and his parents in Krupanj (see paragraph 39 below), on 11 March 2005 the applicant requested enforcement of the final judgment rendered in her favour.
16.  On 18 March 2005 the Municipal Court accepted this request. It ordered P.V. to surrender A.V. to the applicant within three days, warned him that he would otherwise be fined, and stated that, should the fine fail to bring about compliance, A.V. would be taken forcibly, in co-operation with the local Social Care Centre (Centar za socijalni rad).
17.  On 11 April 2005 the District Court upheld this decision.
18.  On 28 April 2005 the Municipal Court scheduled a hearing for 25 May 2005, on which occasion P.V. was supposed to surrender A.V. to the applicant. This hearing, however, was never held because P.V. informed the Municipal Court that he was unable to attend and the applicant thereafter apparently decided not to appear.
19.  The next hearing was held on 8 June 2005. Both the applicant and P.V. attended, as did a psychologist from the Social Care Centre. P.V. again failed to surrender A.V. to the applicant. The psychologist stated that A.V. should not be removed forcibly but should instead be gradually prepared for the custody transfer. On the same occasion, P.V. apparently agreed to facilitate the applicant's contact with A.V. immediately following the hearing. This meeting between the applicant and A.V., however, never materialised, which is why the Municipal Court fined P.V. in the amount of 20,000 Dinars (“RSD”), at the time equivalent to approximately 242 euros (“EUR”). On 20 June 2005 this fine was upheld by the District Court on appeal.
20.  On 12 August 2005 the Municipal Court adjourned the hearing in view of the fact that P.V. had failed to appear in person. The applicant, however, had sent a written explanation in advance, stating that she had informally learned that both P.V. and A.V. were out of town and would not attend the hearing. The applicant stated that she could not afford to travel from Smederevo merely in order to be present at a hearing which was bound to be adjourned. On the same date the Municipal Court fined P.V. in the amount of RSD 50,000, at the time equivalent to approximately EUR 594. On 19 September 2005 this fine was upheld by the District Court on appeal.
21.  On 7 December 2005 the Municipal Court ordered P.V.'s employer, a local primary school, to deduct the said RSD 50,000 from his salary and have it transferred to the Municipal Court's account.
22.  Both the applicant and P.V. attended the next hearing before the Municipal Court held on 11 January 2006. P.V. stated, however, that he did not bring A.V. because she had refused to come of her own free will and he did not want to force her. The enforcement judge thereafter, accompanied by the parties and several police officers, went to P.V.'s home but found the house vacant. On the same date the Municipal Court therefore again fined P.V. in the amount of RSD 60,000, at the time equivalent to approximately EUR 689.
23.  The next hearing before the Municipal Court scheduled for 2 February 2006 was adjourned. P.V. attended but did not bring A.V. and the Director of the Social Care Centre informed the court that no psychologist was available.
24.  On 9 March 2006 the Municipal Court held another hearing. It was attended by both the applicant and P.V., as well as by two psychologists, but A.V. was again not present. The psychologists agreed that A.V. should, if at all possible, be gradually prepared for the custody transfer, but had also stated that continued uncertainty was not in her best interests and that a forcible transfer of custody could thus ultimately be unavoidable. Finally, the Municipal Court decided that P.V. should facilitate the applicant's access to A.V. and that, should he fail to do so, on 17 March 2006 A.V. would be taken forcibly.
25.  On 17 March 2006 P.V. did not appear at the hearing scheduled before the Municipal Court, but the applicant, the police and a child psychologist were present. On the same date a forcible transfer of custody was attempted but, again, P.V.'s house was found to be vacant. The next hearing was scheduled for 14 April 2006.
26.  On 12 April 2006, however, P.V. filed a submission with the Municipal Court, seeking the postponement of the scheduled enforcement. He pointed out that A.V. was a first grade student and that it would therefore be better to wait until the academic year was over.
27.  On 13 April 2006 the applicant filed a submission with the Municipal Court, stating that she was informed by the judge that the enforcement scheduled for 14 April 2006 could not take place in view of the fact that the presence of a psychologist could not be secured. The hearing scheduled for 14 April 2006 was thus adjourned.
28.  On 26 May 2006 the Municipal Court attempted to carry out the transfer of custody, in the presence of the applicant, the police, as well as a child psychologist, but was unable to do so given that A.V. could not be located at her primary school and was later found to be “at the doctor's”.
29.  On 14 June 2006 the Municipal Court again attempted to carry out the forcible transfer of custody. The applicant, several police officers and a child psychologist were present. Ultimately, the enforcement judge ordered that P.V.'s house be broken into. Once this was done, P.V. was found to be inside the house but A.V. was not there. On the same occasion P.V. stated that he did not want to cooperate with the Municipal Court or, indeed, give any information as to A.V.'s whereabouts.
30.  On 20 June 2006 P.V. requested that the enforcement proceedings be postponed in view of an interim measure issued in his favour within a separate set of proceedings (see paragraph 44 below).
31.  On 1 September 2006 the Municipal Court's enforcement judge in charge of the applicant's case withdrew from the proceedings, stating that he did not meet the recently introduced legal requirements in respect of judges dealing with family matters (see paragraph 61 below). Since the Municipal Court in Krupanj had no other suitable judge, on 13 October 2006 the applicant's case was forwarded to the Municipal Court in Loznica (Opštinski sud u Loznici).
32.  On 31 October 2006 the said court rejected P.V.'s request of 20 June 2006.
33.  The next hearing was scheduled for 24 January 2007.
34.  On 18 January 2007 the applicant apparently suggested that this hearing be held in her absence given that she was six months pregnant and specifically advised not to travel. She urged the Municipal Court, however, to arrange that A.V. be transferred to her custody at the premises of the Social Care Centre based in Smederevo, her hometown.  At the same time, P.V. apparently pleaded that the enforcement be postponed in view of the fact that the Municipal Court in Loznica had, within a separate set of civil proceedings, reversed the custody judgment rendered in the applicant's favour (see paragraph 48 below).
35.  It would appear that the hearing scheduled for 24 January 2007 was thus adjourned.
36.  On 2 February 2007 the Municipal Court in Loznica accepted P.V.'s request and formally postponed the enforcement proceedings until there was a final decision in the separate civil suit concerning A.V.'s custody. The court relied on Article 64 § 1 of the Enforcement Procedure Act (see paragraph 56 below).
37.  The applicant complained about the delay in the enforcement proceedings to: i) the President of the Municipal Court on 29 November 2005, 20 February 2006 and 3 May 2006; ii) the President of the District Court on 10 June 2005, 20 February 2006 and 3 May 2006; and iii) the Ministry of Justice on 20 February 2006.
38.  On 8 December 2005 the President of the Municipal Court informed the applicant that she was fully aware of the urgency of the matter in question, but explained that the court only had three active judges which is why the delay was objectively justified.
39.  On 29 June 2001, following a meeting at the Social Care Centre in Smederevo, P.V. took A.V. to his parents' house in Krupanj, which is where she has been living ever since.
40.  On 25 October 2001 the same Social Care Centre stated that P.V. had done so forcibly, disregarding the best interests of A.V.
41.  As of 29 June 2001, the applicant was only able to see A.V. at the premises of the Social Care Centre in Krupanj, and even there for very short periods of time.
42.  Since March 2005, however, following the institution of the enforcement proceedings, the applicant has been deprived of all access to A.V.
43.  On 12 April 2006 P.V. filed a separate civil suit, seeking the reversal of the final judgment of 25 February 2004 (see paragraphs 12-13 above).
44.  On 14 June 2006 the Municipal Court in Loznica issued an interim measure, ruling that A.V. could stay with P.V. until the end of the academic year.
45.  On 4 July 2006 this decision was quashed by the District Court on appeal.
46.  On 14 June 2006 the Social Care Centre in Krupanj, P.V.'s hometown, proposed that custody of A.V. be given to P.V.
47.  On 18 October 2006 the Social Care Centre based in Smederevo, the applicant's hometown, proposed that the applicant retain her custody of A.V.
48.  On 13 December 2006 the Municipal Court in Loznica ruled in favour of P.V. It granted him full custody of A.V. and ordered the applicant to pay 25 % of her monthly salary as child maintenance, pro futuro, plus the accrued maintenance from 12 April 2006 to 12 December 2006. Finally, the applicant was ordered to pay the costs and granted limited access rights: i) from 13 December 2006 to 13 March 2007, two hours every Friday, at the premises of the Social Care Centre based in Krupanj; ii) from 14 March 2007 onwards, one weekend monthly as well as every other birthday plus fifteen days of summer and seven days of winter vacation annually.
49.  In its reasoning the Municipal Court explained that it accepted the recommendation of the Social Care Centre based in Krupanj which had stated, inter alia, that A.V. was properly cared for by P.V., that she was fully adapted to her current family situation and that any transfer of custody to the applicant would thus be traumatic. The recommendation of the Social Care Centre based in Smederevo, however, was dismissed, inter alia, because it was found to be contradictory and the centre had failed to establish direct contact with A.V. The court further noted that A.V., when heard in person, had stated that she wanted to stay with P.V. to whom she was deeply attached and, also, that the applicant had, with the passage of time, become estranged from her. Finally, the Municipal Court noted that the applicant had remarried and lost interest in A.V. and that she had failed effectively to take part in the proceedings.
50.  On 14 March 2007 the District Court upheld the judgment of the Municipal Court in Loznica concerning the custody of A.V. In that respect, it thereby became final. At the same time, however, the District Court quashed the impugned judgment as regards the monthly child maintenance, the applicant's access rights, as well as the costs awarded, and ordered that those issues be re-examined at first instance.
51.  In 2001 the applicant filed a criminal complaint against P.V., alleging that he had illegally taken exclusive custody of A.V. This complaint, however, appears to have been rejected by the Municipal Public Prosecutor's Office (Opštinsko javno tužilastvo) in Krupanj at some point thereafter, since no final custody judgment was rendered by the courts.
52.  On 24 February 2005 the applicant filed another criminal complaint, this time with the police department in Smederevo, stating that she had been threatened by P.V. in connection with her attempts to have her lawful custody rights enforced.
53.  Finally, following the adoption of the custody judgment in her favour, in 2006 the applicant filed yet another criminal complaint against P.V., this time under Article 191 § 1 of the Criminal Code 2005 (see paragraph 69 below). It would appear, however, that this complaint was also subsequently rejected by the Municipal Public Prosecutor's Office in Krupanj.
54.  On 17 March 2006 the applicant filed a criminal complaint against the chief accountant of the primary school in which P.V. was employed, alleging that he had refused to implement the Municipal Court's order of 7 December 2005 (see paragraph 21 above).